§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, with the agreement of the noble Marquess and, I hope, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, I propose to ask my two Questions the other way round: I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been approached, and if so by whom, about the possibility of a change in the constitution of the United Nations Security Council, and whether they will make a statement.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN)No, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not been approached about this matter.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, does the noble Lord rule out the possibility that if the Chinese People's Republic is accepted as a Member of the United Nations, and eventually and almost inevitably as a Member of the Security Council, there would be no reason why some of the smaller Powers, such as the United Kingdom and perhaps France, should retain a seat? Is not the trend in the direction of the super Powers occupying seats on the Security Council to the exclusion of the minor Powers? Would not this policy, even if there were a united Europe, lead to Europe not being represented on the Security Council?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, if I may say so, I think the remarks made by the noble Lord are pretty speculative at this stage. There 352 has been no indication to Her Majesty's Government, either formally or informally, of any change in the composition of the Security Council.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that Mr. Louis Heren, who implied yesterday in The Times that the Government might have been approached by some party in this respect, is no lightweight fantasist? And would he not agree that Governments usually know more than they admit to knowing? Would the noble Marquess not attempt to consign this canard to the oblivion that it deserves by saying who started it?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I read Mr. Heren's article with great interest, and I can certainly confirm what the noble Lord says, that there is no truth in these reports. But as to who started them, I simply cannot say.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is it not a fact that one has only to read three Articles of the Charter—Nos. 23, 108 and 109—to see that our place as a Permanent Member of the Security Council cannot be taken from us except by our own Vote?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, that is quite correct.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, whether or not the Government have been approached, can the noble Marquess say whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider any change in the constitution of the United Nations Security Council?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, this is certainly a question that I should myself require to consider. Any change in the composition of the Security Council raises very wide issues within the United Nations itself, and I am not personally aware at this stage of any general wish to change the composition.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, arising from the noble Marquess's assent to the statement made about the Charter and the composition of the Security Council and its Permanent Representatives, am I to understand that the United Kingdom, although it has the power of veto—as indeed have all Members of the Security 353 Council—would have the right to use that veto in order to retain its position on the Security Council? Is there not some misunderstanding?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I do not think so. This question is really bound up with the wider questions concerning the revision of the United Nations Charter. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, this was under consideration at the last General Assembly. But, as I said in my previous answer, I am not aware of any general wish to change the composition of the Security Council.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that perhaps this discussion is a little premature? Whatever our hopes may be, the admission of China to the United Nations in the near future is most unlikely—they will only come in if Formosa is thrown out—and the China lobby in the United States is too strong to attempt anything of that kind for a long period to come.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I would prefer not to comment on what the noble Lord has just said. The admission of China has come up regularly for many years, and it is something for which the British Government have voted since 1961. At this present date it may perhaps be rather premature to discuss it.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is it really premature to say that this country would consider its own interests, when these are guaranteed by the Charter? The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, can see the truth of what I have said by reference to any commentary on the Charter. The composition under the Charter of the United Nations differs in this respect from that under the League of Nations: Article 23 lays down that we are a Permanent Member, and under Articles 108 and 109—